draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.txt   draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz
Internet-Draft SRI International, Inc. Internet-Draft SRI International, Inc.
Obsoletes: 4294 (if approved) J. Loughney Obsoletes: 4294 (if approved) J. Loughney
Intended status: Informational Nokia Intended status: Informational Nokia
Expires: October 28, 2011 T. Narten Expires: November 24, 2011 T. Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
April 26, 2011 May 23, 2011
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.txt draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments. deployments.
This document obsoletes RFC4294. This document obsoletes RFC4294.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 10
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11
5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11
5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 12 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 12
5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 3315 . . . . 13
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13
6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 16 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 16
9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 19 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 19
13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 19 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 20
13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 20 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 20
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 20 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 20
17. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 17. Appendix: Changes from One ID version to Another . . . . . . . 21
18. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 17.1. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
19. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 17.2. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
20. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 17.3. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
21. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 17.4. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 17.5. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
23. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 17.6. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
24. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 17.7. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
24.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
24.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Requirements Language 1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6 This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address
Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- Section 3 of "Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms" [RFC4213] - Section 3 of "Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms" [RFC4213]
5. IP Layer 5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This
specification MUST be supported. specification MUST be supported.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. described in RFC 2460.
The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.
Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment
headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
[RFC5722]. [RFC5722].
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Security Payload [RFC2460].
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is
Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
routing type. routing type.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by
[RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC4861 states: [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC4861 states:
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
edge networks. edge networks.
"IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported. RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported.
5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks
each advertising its own default route(s). Nodes (routers or hosts) each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
MAY wish to implement this functionality. via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide
connectivity to destinations the other router does not and choosing
the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In
such cases, RFC4191 can help.
Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers
adhering to [RFC6204], use [RFC4191] to advertise routes to certain
local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in
SOHO environments SHOULD implement [RFC4191].
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971
SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA)
[RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4
counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain
classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some
implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment
experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 11, line 10
fragmentation and reassembly. fragmentation and reassembly.
One operational issue with Path MTU discovery occurs when firewalls One operational issue with Path MTU discovery occurs when firewalls
block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU discovery relies on block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU discovery relies on
such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
sent. Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC4821] avoids having sent. Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC4821] avoids having
a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the
sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes. IPv6 Jumbograms
make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in
which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g.,
within a campus or datacenter). To date, few implementations exist
and there is essentially no reported experience from usage.
Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time.
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.
5.9. Addressing 5.9. Addressing
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
skipping to change at page 12, line 29 skipping to change at page 12, line 40
point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those
addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track
the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its
pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise
privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862].
In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases,
such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides
limited or no benefit. limited or no benefit.
Implementors of "RFC4941 should be aware that certain addresses are Implementers of "RFC4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
details. details.
5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484
The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
[RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal
with multiple addresses configured simultaneously. with multiple addresses configured simultaneously.
5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 3315
DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In
network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6 or both. There will be a wide
of stateless address autoconfiguration is more widely implemented in range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment
hosts than address configuration through DHCP. However, some requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for address
environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the assignment. Consequently all hosts SHOULD implement address
configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware configuration via DHCPv6.
of what operating environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts
MAY implement address configuration via DHCP.
In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
[RFC4862]. [RFC4862].
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
[RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
skipping to change at page 14, line 31 skipping to change at page 14, line 38
One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network
operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers.
For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize
interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement interoperability in such environments hosts would need to implement
multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.
Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was
performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined, performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined,
but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router
Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published
as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration
information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs.
Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be
implemented. implemented.
skipping to change at page 16, line 29 skipping to change at page 16, line 38
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952
Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
Representation" [RFC5952]. Representation" [RFC5952].
9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs)
There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not
mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementors, however, relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however,
would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing
existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
applications. applications.
"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
functionality used by typical applications. Implementors should note functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note
that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX
[POSIX]. [POSIX].
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
[RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
diagnostic and other more specialized applications. diagnostic and other more specialized applications.
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
facilities that allow an application to override the default Source facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
Address Selection rules of [RFC3484]. Address Selection rules of [RFC3484].
skipping to change at page 20, line 27 skipping to change at page 20, line 38
15. IANA Considerations 15. IANA Considerations
This document has no requests for IANA. This document has no requests for IANA.
16. Authors and Acknowledgments 16. Authors and Acknowledgments
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph
Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka
Sheffer and Dave Thaler for their comments. Savola, Yaron Sheffer and Dave Thaler for their comments.
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279
The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the
IPv6 Node Requirements design team: IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
jari.arkko@ericsson.com jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Marc Blanchet Marc Blanchet
marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
skipping to change at page 21, line 27 skipping to change at page 21, line 38
dthaler@windows.microsoft.com dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
Juha Wiljakka Juha Wiljakka
juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to
Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to
Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
17. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 17. Appendix: Changes from One ID version to Another
RFC Editor: Please remove this section upon publication.
17.1. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10
1. With changes in requirements for IPsec and Routing Headers,
clarified language regarding processing of unknown options, and
removed paragraph lising which extension headers were required to
be implemented.
2. Removed "RFC4292-bis" from title.
3. Expanded the text on Jumbograms.
4. Changed recommendation of DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD.
5. Expanded the text on RFC4191, and changed recommendation from MAY
to SHOULD.
17.2. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09
1. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 1. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790] [RFC5790]
18. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 17.3. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08
1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains 1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains
without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to
tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313). tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313).
2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific 2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific
Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY. Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY.
3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6" (RFC4429). for IPv6" (RFC4429).
4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" 4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers"
5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are 5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are
skipping to change at page 22, line 4 skipping to change at page 22, line 30
Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY. Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY.
3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6" (RFC4429). for IPv6" (RFC4429).
4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" 4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers"
5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are 5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are
required. required.
6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented SHOULD be implemented
7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
19. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 17.4. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07
1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775. of RFC 3775.
2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC 2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC
6106) has been published. 6106) has been published.
3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation. 3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation.
4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added 4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added
as a MAY. as a MAY.
5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942).
6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented SHOULD be implemented
7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
20. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 17.5. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06
1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed
by 6man and saag. by 6man and saag.
2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies 2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies
to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in
their requirements their requirements
3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular. 3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular.
Text made more crisp. Text made more crisp.
4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address 4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address
discussion to Section 5.8.5. discussion to Section 5.8.5.
5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t. 5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t.
default configuration setting. default configuration setting.
21. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 17.6. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05
1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD)
still open. still open.
2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options.
3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs 3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs
(RFC5006bis). (RFC5006bis).
4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. 4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits.
5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section. 5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section.
22. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 17.7. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability
statement statement
2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs. added some more RFCs.
4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY)
5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance
to recommendation to recommendation
6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs. 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs.
23. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
1. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as 1. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as
significant additions and updates. While this section significant additions and updates. While this section
highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this
section for a comprehensive list of all changes. section for a comprehensive list of all changes.
2. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an 2. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an
applicability statement and that this document is aimed at applicability statement and that this document is aimed at
general nodes. general nodes.
3. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding 3. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY. references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY.
4. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 4. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs. added some more RFCs.
5. Added Section on SEND (it is a MAY) 5. Added Section on SEND (it is a MAY)
6. Revised Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more 6. Revised Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more
nuance to recommendation. nuance to recommendation.
7. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall 7. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall
recommendation to a SHOULD. recommendation to a SHOULD.
8. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD 8. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.
9. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD
recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106), recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106),
cleaned up DHCP recommendations cleaned up DHCP recommendations
9. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 10. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775. of RFC 3775.
10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 11. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942).
11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 12. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented SHOULD be implemented
12. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 13. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 14. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363. 15. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363.
15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, 16. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213. including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213.
17. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and
discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862). update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862).
17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents. 18. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 19. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
19. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 20. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 21. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790] [RFC5790]
22. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
24. References 19. References
24.1. Normative References 19.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
skipping to change at page 27, line 16 skipping to change at page 27, line 44
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, September 2010. RFC 5996, September 2010.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, November 2010. RFC 6106, November 2010.
24.2. Informative References [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.
19.2. Informative References
[DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 [DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6
Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0", Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0",
July 2010, July 2010,
<http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>. <http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001, ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001,
<http://www.opengroup.org/austin>. <http://www.opengroup.org/austin>.
 End of changes. 44 change blocks. 
75 lines changed or deleted 107 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/